ICANN kept introducing new gTLDs that it alleged the world needed, when all those new gTLDs did was create confusion for the general population and liability for corporations and organizations [wikipedia.org] that felt pressured [slashdot.org] to race to "buy" their name again with the latest gTLD ending to "protect" their image. It was a money grab [slashdot.org] on their part. Simply shameful. Now the system through which this nonsense was created is down?

I wouldn't call that broken. I'd call it "fixed." Glad they finally got around to it.

There is a difference between the machine language (xyz.com) and the user's language (*$#@*_). Until ICANN accepts this (not realizes, they already realize this, it's just a money grab. What they should to do is move the "web" to a tld'less environment but that would hurt their bottom line so they won't. It's too bad the distributed DNS systems have no way of dealing with spam but alas. What ICANN should be doing is moving to to said tld'less systems. There is no reason beyond asinine one's that some random

Sounds like you are just moving the TLD up one.Not having to type some ".XYZ" after you want to go to coke.com? So you just want them to type coke?Is that not what ICANN is doing.You are an AC idiot and you have no clue as to how the internet works. The whole reason the internet naming system worked as well as it did was because of the few number of ".XYZs" out there. ICANN is doing what you suggest in reality and in my opinion (Not so humble) you are both fucking idiots.

I have a simple test for whether a new TLD is sensible: the fucksgoats test. If you create a new.fucksgoats TLD, then lots of people who already own.com domains will buy the.fucksgoats variant to prevent other people using it. If the majority of the people who would buy a domain under a new proposed TLD would also buy the.fucksgoats domain (and for the same reason), then it should not be approved. We saw this with.xxx: most of the people registering.xxx domains already owned the.com or similar ver

I have a simple test for whether a new TLD is sensible: the fucksgoats test.

I'm pretty sure that Facebook would sue you for copywright and/or trademark infringement if you setup a fucksgoats TLD. See, Facebook and fucksgoats both start with the letter 'F' and have two syllables, and I'm pretty sure Facebook claims to own anything that meets those criteria. Also, Facebook and fucksgoats share half of the same letters - FACOK - which Facebook will determine to be too misleading for their users. And finally, fucksgoats and fuckssheep are almost identical and Facebook has already laid

ICANN's first jobs when it seized control of the domain business were to require True Names for domain name registration and to stop the IETF Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC)'s plan for expanding the gTLD space. The IAHC plan initially proposed seven fairly lame new gTLDs (which was fine, because you want to test out the expansion process on names that nobody really cares about, like.firm, using them as a scratch monkey before you sell the valuable gTLDs, like.inc,.llc,.ltd..gmbh, and.sex, because you only g

Frankly, someone should go on Kickstarter and collect money for a sustained DDoS to keep it down. When all else fails, and permanent harm is immanent, something needs to be done and the fine details of legality sorted out afterwards.

Someone could go on Kickstarter and raise some money for an open source project to do it for them. They could hand out tee-shirts saying "I helped fix the Internet".

How about using Kickstarter to get enough funding to buy one (or more) of these ludicrous vanity TLD? Then we can vote on which one(s) to buy. There's already been a suggestion to establish a fucksgoats [slashdot.org] TLD here on/., but I'm pretty sure there may be a few other suggestions. What would you like to see as a vanity TLD?

The new system they're proposing of handing out arbitrary branded TLDs is a joke. It's a slap in the face of internet architecture. One of the DNS's most defining and useful properties is that it's a hierarchical system with meaning. The ccTLDs we have today make sense. The historical com/net/org/mil TLDs work. I'm even somewhat ok with the addition of some of the newer gTLDs that have a fixed, broad, categorical meaning that will contain lots of independent subdomains (e.g. ".xxx").

But the very idea of ".pepsi" and ".mcdonalds" is just sad and stupid, and it's a clear fear-based money-grab on the part of those intimately involved in selling TLD/DNS services, all of whom are in bed with each other and the ICANN. ICANN, get your heads out of your asses!

No, it's proof that we understand what you write: It's a legalised racket - therefor, a lawsuit doesn't stand a chance. Changing the laws is the correct approach, but it takes too long and by then the damage is done (you don't think any TLD will ever be decomissioned, do you?).

Oh, btw. - can we please stop calling them gTLDs? They are anything but "generic". That exactly is the fundamental problem with them. They are in fundamental opposition to the very concept of the DNS, that it breaks down into ever mor

Oh, btw. - can we please stop calling them gTLDs? They are anything but "generic". That exactly is the fundamental problem with them. They are in fundamental opposition to the very concept of the DNS, that it breaks down into ever more specific parts from highly generic ones. You can argue that.com and.org and.net have lost their original meanings, but they are still very generic and fit thousands upon thousands of domains. How many 2nd level names will we see within.citibank,.kfc and.disney?

I agree that these 'vanity' corporate TLDs are the opposite of generic, but I'm sure there are some who are going to drop $185,000 to try to set up their own TLD simply to extort money from companies trying to protect their corporate identities or to try to become a cool alternative to.com,.net, etc.

The company that registers a generic enough TLD, such as.cloud,.web,.service, will be able to harvest a nice registration fee (and annual renewals) from any company that doesn't want someone else grabbin

Selling gTLDs is an epically bad idea. The enormous leeway that ICANN gives to owners of gTLDs is sickening and could open up a great number of new problems (new spamming mechanisms being just one of them) that we did not face before.

ICANN needs to go, if they are willing to commit such grave offenses against the internet community in the name of profit.